You can dislike the policy/law all you like. The question is whether you think intentionally defaulting on the debt and causing worldwide economic chaos is a reasonable response to higher health insurance premiums.

As I've already said on this thread, the problem arises first and foremost with the Tea Party's foreign understanding of party politics in America. They need to be dispelled of the notion that political parties exist to adhere strictly to one or two notches on the ideological spectrum. That's copasetic if you have 20 parties. It's a disaster, however, when you (effectively) have only two. Tea Partiers and like minded Republicans need to stop the practice of worshiping at the altar of inflexibility and calling it 'principle.' This is America; if you want to be a successful party you form broad coalitions or go the way of all that once existed but does no longer. If you think that it's "spineless" to cooperate with your fellow Americans, and would rather engage in apocalyptic us-vs-them nonsense, then your beliefs run contrary to the whole of American history, except the tragic Civil War. Alas, it is easier to tell ourselves either that we only need a true conservative (pointing often to Reagan, as if his 1980 election happened by his sheer "conservative-ness" and circumstances did nothing to aid it), or sardonically, and asininely, proclaiming that the nation is simply now mostly illegals and welfare bums and there's just nothing constructive we can do. Anything but actually changing how we operate. Makes one wonder how many election losses it's going to take, or if election losses even phase us (Republicans) any more.

Washington disliked political parties; the operational-and quite successful compromise- was for political parties to exist yet be little more than a label while legislators voted according to a variety of personal interests and (hopefully)convictions.

There are good things to be imported from Europe, but monolithic, battalion-like political parties is certainly not one of them.

It seems to me that in the current political climate (i.e. Obama), "cooperation" necessarily means assent to the incremental growth of government. If resistance to the growth of government is no longer a tenable political strategy, then frankly this country has larger problems than the obsolescence of the Republican Party.

Standing three years from the next national election, Republicans would be better served waiting on coalition building. Until Republicans win the presidency, any bone thrown within the tent (e.g. immigration reform) will be attributed to Obama and his Democrat successors. As the 2016 election draws near, I hope that a Republican candidate will be able to bring together a coalition large enough to win, but sufficiently principled to stop the growth of the federal government. Such coalition building is not unprecedented. Witness the wacko Sheehan fringe of the Democratic Party, circa 2005.

I would have to disagree. The time to build coalitions is not after or during elections but before. If you are trying to corral a majority in the relatively few weeks betwixt your convention and election day then you are doomed to failure. Being a big tent party doesn't mean inviting everyone into your small tent every 2 to 4 years. Also, it does not do to say that we won't do anything constructive because the other side might somehow get the credit. Using that logic nothing would get done.
Additionally, one can oppose the growth of government without being a knuckle-dragger. The problem with many of us on the right is we use "government" as some monolithic boogey man. The fact is that in our representative republic, the only "government" that exists is that which is placed there via elections or is appointed/approved by those elected. Not all governments are created equal, and it is a mistake to conflate our great republic with, say, China or the former USSR. Our task is not to stop governing but to govern efficiently. Just because something is public doesn't mean it's tyrannical. Once we get that understood, we are in a much more credible and strong position to counter the Democrats, who I believe over-emphasize the role of government and aren't terribly sympathetic to business. But the polar opposite of a bad thing is usually a bad thing itself

Spot on. It is a relatively unique understanding of parties that has served us well throughout our history. It'd be beyond tragic for that understanding to be lost and replaced with something more pernicious.

I´m all for limited yet effective government.I endorse most of what you wrote above.

Political appearances are misleading, particularly in this age of Fox news playing with people´s minds.I always thought Murdoch was the kind of nefarious influence one doesn´t invite to the house, yet he sneaked into America in the 1980s and look at the consequences.

Tea Party ideals are fine, but parties, like employees or friends, have to be judged by their achievements, not by what they say.

The end result of TP activity so far has been shallow and antagonistic, inconclusive argumentation and the triumph of policies that are the opposite of what they are supposedly trying to defend.And this idea about waiting out until they gain "decisive" power(in a series of elections over a constantly expanding future) has this weird quasi religious tone that should have no place in sane, republican with a small "r" politics.

"Ultimately, the GOP will need to endorse some new policies..." On cue, Mr. Ryan had his chance to do just that this morning in the Budget Conference Committee. He could have offered a massive reduction in corporate taxes in exchange for closing loopholes. He could have had a whole bevy of revenue-neutral solutions. Instead, we got a big, fat "Nope."

It's now up to the 65% of the rest of America to find a compromise candidate in their district and get him/her elected against these jihadists.

Wait for the results of elections in Virginia. The electorate, if the polls are correct, are fed up with the Tea Party. Ted Cruz and Tea Party may be just a flash in the pan. Two years ago, many in the US thought that the fresh aroma of the Tea Party - sticking to the fundamentals - was what was needed to cure all the ills in Washington. Now, the broader opinion is that it stinks and Ted Cruz represents all that is bad in Washington.

It's also worth noting that the last polls I saw that come to mind have 23% of Americans self-identifying as Republicans and 27% agreeing with the tea party (separate polls and I'm not fact-checking) but it may be the case that the Tea Party is larger in terms of American voters who sympathize than the GOP.

The risk to Republicans, then, is that the takeover gets complete and we end up eventually with a GOP that can no longer compete. But that will probably take a while.

Oh, that makes perfect sense. Yeah, I think Mr. Cruz will not have trouble getting reelected in Texas. And he has the kind of sunny, funny disposition I am not sure he won't get elected President but I sort of doubt it.

By the way, I am ready to go on record with this: Cruz wins the Iowa Straw Poll, Christie the NH primary, Paul South Carolina, Christie Florida, Paul wins Super Tuesday but some states go to Christie and Cruz. Cruz obviously wins Texas but nothing after and the nomination goes to Paul.

None of them are all that impressive as of right now but I hope they will grow up into something worthwhile during the next 3 years.Many have before them.

Paul-Christie could be.What about splitting the Hispanic vote? I´m not sure how to achieve that, but what I am not sure of either is that Cruz will deliver any Hispanic votes except for Texas.Not from California nor the SW imho. Somebody for the future VP slot should be fighting in favor of the presently about to be defunct immigration bill, for example.

I'm with you for the beginning, but I expect Christie to win Super Tuesday. (With some states, as you say, going to the other two.)
.
The real question, in my mind, is what Christie does once he gets the nomination. For openers, can he find someone for VP who a) can get past the necessary convention vote, but who is b) enough of a pragmatist (i.e. not so much of a whack job) that s/he doesn't lose votes in big numbers. If he manages to pull that off, he might actually have a chance.

It won't happen, of course. But think of the fun if Martinez somehow got the nomination! Less radical even than Christie, so she could pull in more moderates. Probably better at pulling in the Hispanic votes than Cruz or Rubio. And less likely to lose women to Hilary Clinton than any of the guys.
.
She'd do better than the rest in the general election. Too bad she'd never get thru the primaries.

Martinez is the second of only two women whom I´ve ever known to sleep next to a .357 magnum.

I personally like very much the first but not all that much the second.

Nevertheless, and although the GOP base will be reluctant to hand her the nomination, yes, I totally agree with you she is the person who would help the Republicans be viable as a national party regarding the executive branch.

She will be a great VP candidate, and given support and some polishing she could become a pivotal figure and finally manage to split the Hispanic vote.

The way the numbers stand as of now, African Americans will remain 90% Democrats for the foreseeable future and so will Asian Americans and most other minorities.Without splitting the Hispanic vote the GOP will be banished from the WH for too many years.

Martinez comes from a Mexican background, a poor background, a formerly Democrat and jump to make your own living background.That relates to the experiences of average Hispanics in a way that the average notable Republican Cuban Americans, mostly descendants of the well to do Cuban oligarchy of European descent who ruled that country before the times of Fidel Castro( who BTW is himself the son of a large landowner born in Spain) never will.

Demographics dictate the GOP better get this one right, and I think they just might, but if they do it will admittedly be a first in their recent shoot in the foot history.

On the other side, I wish the best for her personally and find her an admirable woman and more to my liking than Susan Martinez.Not that her nomination would be a politically healthy development for the Republic either.

Not in a gerrymandered legislature. Once an area is "captured" by a particular party group, it won't let go and unless the district changes (without redistricting again) or the gerrymandering is reversed, the only way to get elected is to go through them.

The Tea Party is a natural symptom of the mess you've got yourselves in. It won't get better without fixing the causes.

Or shutting up and shutting out the lunatics. Palin and Bachmann are still touting their harebrained ideology, and there is no reason to believe that they and the other right-wing liches [i.e. political zombies] will give up and allow more "moderate" Republicans to be elected.

The zombies have actually taken control of the GOP and a swath of electoral districts that have to be "cleansed" somehow. The only moral and civilized cleansing method of course is education, but the problem is protecting education and educators from the zombie hordes.

Agreed, and to add to your point there is nothing wrong with Christie, maybe he can lose a little weight but that does not concern me but some women would not vote if he does not or so the conventional wisdom says . He has certainly done a good job, is level headed and can drive coalition. I am sure he will be butchered in the primaries like Mitt was and even if he survives the brutal primaries the GOP would have made so many holes in his campaign that he would be un-electable in General Election.

And I do not understand most Tea-Party supporters either. They are kind of like we want small government but keep our SS and Medicare and spend a lot on Military. But wait that and interest payment on debt is like 70% government. And they are like so what? Cut the rest of it. Do not believe me, then go and read comments on WSJ forums.

But wait that and interest payment on debt is like 70% government.
.
And there you highlight the core of the problem. In the minds of the Tea Party faithful, over 80% of government spending is made up of stuff that actually comprises under 20% of real spending. And their belief is strong enough that any attempt to inject facts into the discussion fails.

It is obvious the two parties can only hinder each other at the expense of the country. Since "they" cannot set an agenda we need to set one for them. A national debate by the populace, on the key issues, reforms, changes that should take place is needed. These are selected by a general vote after being laid out by national university leaders. Then given to the congress to act upon, not with a "request" but with a mandate to ACT in the interests of the voters.
this would bypass the special interests on all sides and set a concrete agenda for running America. The congress should NOT have the option to change the agenda and should NOT get paid until the issue is settled - in priority order as determined by the vote.

The only way to do that would be by constitutional convention. That is extremely unlikely for a number of reasons, not least that a percentage of delegates would be Tea-Party and Dominionist [i.e. Christian Taliban].

I doubt other people will understand what I'm going for here but I'll just write it anyways.

What else can a person do when the world changes around them in ways they don't understand but overreact out of fears or prejudices formed at the honest extent of their current understanding? Beyond that extent lies the True Unknown, which will evoke anxiety even in the bravest of people.

It is inherent in the being to struggle against the new whether time proves it wise or not to do so. We have all done it at some point, resisted some new piece of information that challenged our worldview because we were so sure of our own correctness. They must not be judged for it if there is to be unity and growth, and what would there be to judge anyways except the passage of time?

This is what happens when time catches up to you; having lived a successful life, no doubt. But through your own successes you closed your mind to alternatives, burned bridges, became more set in your ways because you could. As the world changes and new ways are developed to challenge yours you don't know how to adapt anymore. You lose touch and stubbornly cling to a Golden Age of the past that no longer exists; if it ever did exist. What is memory, anyways? Not so reliable, especially not these days. Maybe it wasn't really so great back then either, compared to now.

There is nothing inherently wrong with it. It is natural, and in that knowing they must not be hated for it by those who suffer from their ignorance or it will be strengthened. They will depart further into their own world and put up higher walls against the onslaught of the unknown threat if hated. All you really need to do is to understand the nature of them and yourself and everything else you can possibly understand and through that the course is made clearer than before. What prevents that from happening inside of every single person? Lots of things, I imagine.

Democrats can do a lot to alleviate anxieties about change by getting their own collective affairs in order and not worrying so much about fighting with Republicans. Even if others stay the same, you will lead by the example of your own success and with time they must follow it because it succeeds where they fail. When they actively interfere, make it known, but do not retaliate. This is The Way, Mr. Obama.

The problem with this strategy is the human ego can prevent us from making honest self-assessments whether we like it or not (and this is where a lot of Democratic incompetence originates from, I think). We need outside perspectives to see who we really are because our own mind protects us in myriad ways from performing honest self-assessments. As a result of this (and other reasons) other people can see things about us that we cannot, failures which we have written off or minimalized for our own benefit are clear to those without a personal stake in things. For this reason, you need outside perspectives, and the Republicans serve a useful function in opposition by being that outside critic sometimes.

But as long as we are isolated in our respective bubbles of reality; talking past each other rather than engaging our ideas in glorious competition to see whose knowledge is the winner; we will not learn anything.

But the battle only needs to exist in the space of our minds if we can control the ego. Then we can have a real transmission of ideas and synthesize information into the whole that is currently inaccessible to us thanks to our most human flaws.

Your first couple paragraphs in particular are spot on. It's along the lines of what Ohio said in another article. He brought up the prescient point of relating them to the Populists, who thrice rallied behind W.J. Bryan to angrily/anxiously protest the rapid de-ruralization and industrialization of America at that time. It's a reaction, among other things, to a changing America. The "struggle against the new," as you termed it. It's been changing all along, but the election and re-election of Obama has brought it home to them with a vengeance. They thought they were still Nixon's Silent Majority, only to find out last year that (ironically enough) they are instead roughly 47% of America. All the fury and anxiety that comes with the changing of society, coupled with a white working class long hard hit by de-industrialization, is on display. Under Clinton, a Southern Democrat, and Bush, a Southern Republican this fury never quite directed itself at the Presidency. Now, with a Harvard-educated Northern Democrat in office (being black certainly doesn't *help) that angst and fury is in full bloom. Your point about checking egotism and keeping open minds is important, but it takes two to tango. The TP has shown itself incapable of either, to the point where it's opposition status is counter-productive. I don't see them responding constructively to a gentler, more understanding approach by Democrats or center-right Republicans like myself.

I could not agree more with this blog. I can only add that America needs a sensible conservative wing in its body politic. But these Tea Party people are so blinkered and ignorant, and so ultimately self-destructive, I'm frightened of what they'd do if they ever won power.

Stalled in Committee after 1851 Center for Constitutional Law Testimony, Bill would permit sharing of “any information” to law enforcement, if not amended Columbus, OH – The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law today took action that stalled passage of Senate Bill 5, legislation that, if enacted, would permit warrantless acquisition, by state and local law enforcement, of Ohioans’ travels..."

The endless testing of purity to an ever changing ideal (and consequent failure) is reminiscent of the European Communist party under Stalin as it was described by Arthur Koestler in the his autobiography The Invisible Writing.

Seems to me there are two basic policy trajectories, one that embraces individual rights and freedoms like gay marriage, legal pot, legal abortion, etc. and one that embraces a form of pseudo religious fanatical facism like making homosexuality a crime, fighting a war on drugs, restricting access to abortion, etc. Seems to me that sophisticated, western world democracies (including some US states) are pursuing the former trajectory resulting in top tier standard of living and happiness indices whereas Islam states, Russia, and certain US states are pursuing the latter trajectory resulting in reducing standards of living and lowest tier happiness indices. If the pursuit of happiness is ingrained somewhere in the AMerican psyche, how long before Texans either throw these bums out or accept that they are willingly becoming the Saudi Arabia of the United States? Purity is from the same root word as puritanism, and how has that worked anywhere it is practised?

When cocaine use becomes habitual, the euphoric high people get starts to diminish. Eventually, users are using just to stay even.

Then when they try to quit, they go through a dysphoric psychological withdrawl, where life seems bland and pointless.

See where I'm going with this?

The GOP voter base is conditioned for the apocalyptic stuff. Anything less is bound to feel like it lacks real purpose and fail to motivate them at best, and trigger outright hostility at worst. Like habitual drug users, they maintain a small set of enabling friends (eccentric conservative billionaires who fund the "grass roots" Tea Party movement), but they've marginalized themselves most of their former friends and acquaintances (women, business interests, independent voters, etc...) and started falling down on the job (winning elections, contributing positively to running the country, avoid bankrupting the United States).

Most drug users try and fail to quit a number of times, and often need to hit "rock bottom" before they find success, if they ever do.

Agreed of course, except for the faux outrage over how a political appointment got political. You know how Fox New hosts blow up stories to be outraged over? To non-partisans, that's what you sound like with your regular accusations of Republican McCarthyism. Just thought you should be aware of that.

Plus did you see this in the story from M.S.'s own link (!) about the prospective appointee, Joshua Inglett?

"Walker aide Michael Brickman called Inglett on Wednesday evening and asked if he'd signed the petition. Inglett said he couldn't remember; he called his father, who reminded him he had. He called Brickman back a few minutes later to tell him he had."

His explanation, let alone his earlier failure to disclose at the start of the process, is very sketchy.

When I told you a few months ago the GOP needed a Latino Texan I didn´t mean Tedious Cross.Cruz is the opposite of what the GOP needs to get traction nationally.

It seems as if a group of intelligent people were organizing the controlled demolition of GOP appeal in order to institute the preeminence of the Wall Street Democrats to last for a couple of decades or more, in the lines of late XIX early XX century Republicans.

Agree, but it doesn't seem, from the linked articles, like the Walker administration was keeping a massive blacklist (nor should it). But outsiders prompted Walker's aides to question the candidate, and it is far from clear he gave a forthright response.

Would Walker have dropped him if he'd been forthright? Maybe, but we don't know, so this is a very weak example for M.S. to use, when he could have cherry-picked something else.

Perhaps MS is overdoing his caricature, but that is something to be expected.

Nevertheless the GOP needs to come up with a higher message (something above the us vs them bums vs us mentality).

As you know, the bottom 20% of the population earn 3 % of the total income, the bottom 60& own less than 4% of the total wealth.A system of patronage plus universal surveillance and manipulation are real dangers to a democracy under such conditions, and that´s a message worth articulating...in a saner way.

The TP are no Reagan revolutionaries nor won´t be anything but counterproductive until they put their two feet on the ground.

On the one hand, yes the GOP should spend more time & energy advocating the benefits of a limited govt, free enterprise & liberty, and self-responsibility society, and less time on negative messages. Talk more about positive visions for healthcare reform consistent with those ideals, and less energy on ACA antics.

On the other hand, not to be argumentative, but it's the responsibility of the American people to control (take control of) the political parties. For the Republican party, the relevant people are mostly center-right and other "alienated" conservatives. The parties are not some sort of life-style brands, where American voters get to passively sit around and see if they like what they see. Too many centrists like to mostly complain about the platforms of the two major parties. Guess what? Those centrists are EQUALLY responsible for the platforms as the people who actually showed up at primaries, caucuses, etc. to shape them.

These iconoclasts persist because they need not fear the voter. Their seats are safely carved out of the electoral landscape to ensure either the republican or democrat candidate will win.

Until we undo the national gerrymander that allows, indeed encourages this foolishness, we're doomed to the politics of extremism. Eventually it will paralyze the government entirely, not just for a week or so.

Unfortunately (and bafflingly), some people (even commenting here) do not believe that gerrymandering exists or that it isn't a huge deal; in fact, they ridicule you for pointing out what a huge deal it is.
And it's not just gerrymandering; it's the whole primary system, too. As long as extremists stand equal-or-better chances than moderates in Republican primaries in red states where the primary election is more important than the general election, then extremists will keep being elected by democratic means even if there isn't they aren't supported by a simple majority of people.
Take Richard Mourdock from Indiana for a little thought experiment. Now, consider the fact that he became the Republican nominee for U.S. Senator because he beat Dick Lugar (one of the very few respectable Republican senators in the last ten years). If a general electorate in Indiana were to vote between the two Dicks, I'm positive that Lugar would win, on account of being less extremist alone. But it wasn't the general electorate that made this decision; it was the Republican electorate in the primary election. Suppose, for a second, that his rape comments never got out. Being the red state that it currently is, Indiana would have probably elected Mourdock over Joe Donnelly (in fact, the polls were running in his favor sh*t hit the fan). Does this mean that a majority of Indianans considered him the best of the three candidates? No. It just means that a majority within the majority (i.e., a majority of Republicans) thought so. So long as a simple majority of the Republicans who are active enough to participate in primary elections continue to lend the suport to nutjobs, nutjobs will keep being elected, even if gerrymandering weren't the issue that it is today.

"Unfortunately (and bafflingly), some people (even commenting here) do not believe that gerrymandering exists or that it isn't a huge deal; in fact, they ridicule you for pointing out what a huge deal it is."

Free Advice from a liberal Magazine to the people they hate the most,
-
Ya, honest its to help out.
-
Let the Party fight it out internally, this is part of the creative destruction process, eventually the strongest ideas, candidates will come make it out.

TE is very liberal on social issues. Then it is quite fiscally conservative but not to the extent GOP hardliners want. For instance, you're a socialist if you think that while balancing the budget is a good thing, it should not be done during a recession caused by lack of demand.

Yes if that is what you mean by Liberal,The Economist was founded by Whigs who opposed the Corn Laws and believed in free trade. In the UK the Liberal Democrats are very definitely not Liberal they are Social Democrats. Someone like George Osborne or Boris Johnson who are both Conservative party politicians are closer to this older Whig view which is what I consider myself. Although I probably don't agree 100% with either of them. Where is it written that someone who believes in small government and limited regulation has to believe that women aren't entitled to choose re abortion and that the existence and acceptance of homosexuality is not the end of civilisation as we know it?

In the US I suspect I would be an independent, switching depending on where I lived, but in the UK I have always been a Conservative and indeed I have a number of friends who have always considered me fairly right wing.

One of my favourite quotes is by Ronald Regan: "The ten most dangerous words in the English language are , I'm from the government and I am here to help"

Maybe the fact that there is no space in the Republican party for someone like me demonstrates the problem.

When people like Lugar (IN) and Bennett (UT) are considered RINOs....when Reagan would get laughed at for promoting himself as a Conservative in the current environment, well...the window has certainly shifted well to the right.

The polarization in Texas really sucks. Our state politics was already known for its viciousness; now, however, it feels like it's just completely full of corruption, with representatives voting for each other (such as someone running up and down the aisles pushing buttons for everyone who is absent-- all in accordance with their own ideals of course) and outright committing fraud (they got caught altering the date on the abortion bill after Wendy Davis' famous filibuster attempt), never mind the ridiculous gerrymandering that's been going on for decades.

Remember when Joe Barton (R - TX 6th district) apologized to BP for all the mean things people were saying about them after the spill? Someone briefly changed his wiki page's first line to read:

"Joseph Linus "Joe" Barton (born Sept. 15, 1949) is a dick."

Not really related, but I got a screencap of it before it was changed back and sums up what I think of our fair state's GOP. On the upside, I assume you heard about that abortion law being gutted by the court? Good stuff.

The Republican base lazily tolerated big government politicians with the "deficits don't matter" Bush-Cheney administration and the Jack Abramoff-fueled Congress. Even immediately following those disasters, the neo-conservative McCain won the Republican presidential primary.

Some of the insurgents now upending the Republican establishment (rife with big warfare-state neocons and big-business crony capitalists) are amped up and over the top, but whom would we expect to lead the charge?

As more small-government & liberty conservatives push out the Republican establishment and deepen their own ranks, we'll get fewer fire-breathing vanguards and more sensible leaders on the right. Of course there is nothing wrong with M.S. or some "worried Republicans" seeking a smoother transition, but concerns about perpetual drifts and spirals seem overstated. In the meanwhile, we're in for some more chop.

Will we though? I guess it all depends on whether you think someone like Ted Cruz will get to a point where he's leading the party and can say "we've gone far enough, now let's compromise and enact actual policy measures." Even given the prodigious flipping skills of politicians as a species, I doubt they can turn that quickly. Usually if you elect a fire-breather, that's what you're stuck with. Like MS says, it's less about the substance and more about tactics.

I agree the leopard doesn't change its spots, but (1) fire-breathing attacks against the big-government Republican establishment will become less politically useful once the insurgents become the establishment, and (2) separately, more pragmatic small-government politicians will run, emboldened by the electoral success of the aggressive pioneers. In other words, we'll get a different mix of leopards.

This 21st Century GOP sounds an awful lot like the German and Russian [USSR] parties of the early 20th Century. I am of course referring to the purges, doctrinal disputes that ended with termination of the losers. So far, however, the terminations in the GOP have not been fatal [except politically].

If they remain unwilling to compromise, they will never get anywhere. I would venture most Americans would not want to live in the "small government" country as envisioned by the tea party/libertarians. The social safty net is a good thing and one of the main reasons to actually form a society. Social Darwinism on a nat'l scale doesn't make for a robust and thriving society, just ask those on the receiving end of most revolutions...

What they would like is less gov't interference in our private lives (i.e. the drug war, abortion, Christian conservative stuff, etc), but they don't support a lot of that (well, the libertarians do, but probably not a lot of the tea party types that aren't also libertarians).

I am hopeful you're right. I suppose there were two ways to go for a principled small-but-not-zero-government conservative during the Bush era, either stay in the party and feel like a fool or drop them like a hot rock. I expect some of the fire-breathing now if from those who stayed in and were fools.

There's always someone to shoot the new sell-outs until the last Republican left alive becomes President.

Mr. Dean, it's worth remembering that Reagan's strategy was start with a maximal position, hold on to it as long as possible and then cut the best deal you can. I suppose it's possible that's what Cruz is doing. I don't think of him as Reaganlike, but I don't think of Reagan that way much either.

My sense is that most small-government conservatives support a basic welfare safety-net, and the disagreement with liberals is over size and scope, not the idea itself. If the Republicans in Texas want to shrink the safety-net so far as to make it meaningless, yeah, they won't get anywhere nationally.

I think the Reagan strategy you describe is a good baseline for all politicians: ask for everything, take what you can get. We'll see what happens over the next few months, but Cruz (and the TP in general) don't seem to be either laying out a plan for what they actually want or interested in compromise. Politicians of all stripes are great at the "maximal position" part, but we're seeing a major failure of the "cut a deal" part.

Right and what's frustrating is that incrementalism is how you win arguments. Reagan flipped the switch from active government looking for new problems to start to passive government looking for opportunities to get out of the way. By winning small battles, most of the country that didn't like it at first decided the change was not catastrophic, largely because the change wasn't catastrophic. From then to now, Americans have been more skeptical about government as a source of solutions.

But maximalism and puritanism doesn't win arguments. Most of us in the middle are leery of Democrats but either angry with or frightened of the tea party folks and, through them, the GOP. I have thought and still think that the problem with the further right is that they mistake neighbors for subjects and solutions for failures.

The image in my mind of a man in tattered clothing with a long, matted beard missing all his teeth hanging off the side of a light post pointing at a stroller and screaming "stop him! Police! He's unreliable!"